In the June issue of the Niagara Anglican, official publication of the Diocese of Niagara, editor Christopher Grabiec calls for “a Christian truce” because, after all, doctrine doesn’t matter. The 3rd-century theologian Arius believed that Jesus was a created being and not divine by nature, but this teaching was rejected at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
Let’s be honest for a moment. Who knows who was right in the Christological arguments of the 3d century? We know who won, but who really knows who was right? More to the point, does it really matter? Most likely, each of us has a unique understanding of our relationship to Jesus Christ.
Reading that, you’d never know that St Athanasius and other early-church fathers wrote many lengthy volumes setting forth arguments, replete with Bible references, supporting the understanding of the nature of God and Christ encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. To Mr Grabiec, however, biblical teaching had nothing to do with Nicaea: Arius was just a victim of an absurd power trip. In the wrong place at the wrong time, apparently.
What’s more, if the truth of the Nicene Creed doesn’t really matter, then Athanasius was misguided to defend it at such great personal cost: He was sent into exile five times for a total of seventeen years between 328 and 365. Why did he champion the Creed? He believed it was because our salvation depends on the deity of Jesus Christ. No creature, however exalted, could save us; only a divine Christ could accomplish our salvation. But now we are told that Athanasius’ travails were really much ado about nothing.
The “Christology is irrelevant” line of thinking (one hesitates to call it an “argument”) also makes a mockery of the early-church martyrs. They were put to death for upholding the teaching of God’s redemption through his only-begotten Son our Lord—but that teaching doesn’t really matter.
In the BCP Morning Prayer service, we recite the “Te Deum Laudamus”, which includes these words:
Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts;
Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of thy glory.The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee;
The goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee;
The noble army of Martyrs praise thee;
“Noble army of martyrs”? They weren’t noble; they were foolish for going to death insisting on beliefs about God and Christ that don’t really matter. Church tradition holds that eleven of the twelve apostles were martyred, so the same goes for them—and for the prophets who were ridiculed and mistreated, tortured and killed, for upholding the faith.
Mr Grabiec is persuaded that his understanding of Christ is true for him because he feels it.
I am in a same-sex union. I can also say that in my prayer life I am confident that my God truly blesses our union. I feel the presence of God and I know God’s blessing. No human being from any church can tell me differently.
If reconciliation with God were a matter of confidence and blessed feelings, then Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons would all be saved. The Bible, by contrast, teaches that salvation is found in the unique and divine Son of God.
This dialogue between Jesus and Pilate comes to mind:
Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
Pilate thought truth was unimportant. The church has always believed otherwise.
h/t: David Koyzis, Byzantine-Rite Calvinist
It was a few years ago that I exchanged some testy words with a UCC student intern (and a product of the Apostate School of Atlantic Theology) and took her to task about these very concepts in which she couldn’t really defend herself other than parrot mere opinion. She was espousing these very thoughts at a mid week coffee break time in the presence of some of that particular churches senior members whose faces seemed to strain at what they were hearing. I thought, what a wonderful pastoral practice to offend these particular seniors with such a load of crap! Unfortunately this odoriferous stench tends to spreed in all directions and I find it highly offensive. I for one as a Canadian Anglican will be looking forward to readings ++ Fred’s rebuttal in the Niagara Anglican and/or The Anglican Journal… you know, in accordance to what he was ordained to – BCP 657-667 and charged with defending.
In spite of being – from the liberal perspective – a hopeless renegade, I still get the Niagara Anglican delivered to my door. And I still irritate myself by rifling through its theologically flaccid pages. The absence of horror or even surprise in my reaction to learning that the editor of the august journal regards doctrine as irrelevant and his same sex relationship as normative is, I suppose, a statement in itself.
This is another example of the Anglican Church’s love affair with Post-Modernism run amock. The starting point for most of their arguments is “I FEEL”. When did studious analysis and obedience go out the window?
Alan (#1), since Christopher Grabiec is espousing a form of gnosticism, it is entirely natural that he would question the need for creeds (and say the other things he does). The Preacher of Ecclesiastes was quite right when he said that there is nothing new under the sun. This form of gnosticism has gained considerable traction within evangelicalism as a whole, and I don’t imagine anyone from the ACoC leadership will feel any compulsion to rebutt the article. Unfortunately, many probably support Grabiec’s thesis.
One of the great ironies in this whole debate is that the self-described “thnking Anglicans” in fact have no use for logical thought. Their every argument, as you say, is predicated not on reason but on gut instincts and feelings. “This is the way I feel about X, therefore I’m right” sums up virtually every revisionist statement. And if you venture an opposing viewpoint, their response is not a counter-argument but “Now you’ve hurt my feelings”.
Thinking Anglicans? If only!
I’ve often notuced the similarity of many liberals’ views to the Arian heresy. If more of them were open about this it would be a contribution of clarity to the ongoing debates.
“… property issues landed us in court.”
Mr Grabiec makes it sound as if it’s something that just, you know, happened. “We were walking along one day, happily minding our own business, when suddenly — BOOM! — we found ourselves in court!”
No, Mr Grabiec. Your side forced the issue, threatened the traditionalists and then hauled them before a judge, produced dubious witnesses, bussed in phony “congregations” to fill empty pews, LIED to the press, and persisted with your litigation even after the first judge gave the other side temporary use of their own properties. And you’re still keeping up the war on your fellow Anglicans, a war you have every intention of “winning” even if it drains your coffers and forces you to close down more parishes.
Enough already with the weasel words. Tell it like it is.
I’ve noticed a small trend in certain diocesan newspapers over the last little while: a more direct questioning of the articles of the creed. I will be interested to see if a] anyone in leadership addresses these questions which have to do with our “core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal)”; b] those who espouse such views will continue to hack away at the creeds, and yet still claim to be faithful to the Anglican way of discipleship.
Toral – many others have come to the same conclusions: there is a stream of Arianism present in the western church.
It’s worse than Arianism. Heretical as his views were, Arius at least granted some kind of special, elevated status to the Son. Most modern-day revisionists want to downgrade Him to a really nice chap who lived and died 2000 years ago, but had some really swell ideas that outlived him.
Arius had nothing on these people.
In the ABC’s response to GAFCON, he makes the statement:
Contrast that with Christopher Grabiec’s words (that refer back to his comments on Arius):
If the ABC is in touch with reality, it is a wholly different reality than I live in.
I used to have sympathy for Liberals, after all, if they were taught garbage in seminary, and had never heard the Gospel truly preached with an opportunity to respond, then what could we expect? But the havoc they are reaping throughout North America in our day is so great, and the risk so high for so many souls inside and outside the Church, that I have abandoned all compassion for these nut jobs. It’s time we went Pauline on these folks (Gal 1:6).
Stories like these are a call to faithful churches that have remained in the ACC to stand with those who have departed, and are prepared to pay and are paying a great cost for the Gospel.
Yet in spite of al the heresy we hear (on the last page) about those brave young hearts taking a stand with the Prayer Book Society.
I know Warren (#4) I know… Perhaps I am foolishly clinging to yet another last straw that is breaking? And what’s equally pathetic is the verifiability of your observations about select evangelical traction with the same mind set. As for the House of Bishops, has it already morphed into the House of Vosper with Spong as its prophet?
What I find most incredible about Mr. Grabiec’s article is his total but completely oblivious, amazingly naive narcissism. He is clearly utterly untroubled by any sort of insight into his own relationship with reality, and that would seem both hilarious and somehow ineffably sad.
I have a strong feeling Scott that Grabiec believes that Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists etc will all be saved. Never mind that our Lord said that He was The way, The truth and The life.
Barb – Despite Grabiec’s overall nonsense, you are wrong to think that Mormons, Hindus, etc. cannot be saved. At least this is the historic Catholic position. Only certain extreme Protestants believe that no one else can be saved.
rob k (#16), your assertion is so undeniably false that I must not understand what you meant to say. Do you actually believe that the historic catholic (small c) position is that Jesus is only one way of many to God? Barb never said that people of other religions cannot be saved if they believe in Jesus.
16 Rob,
There isn’t much wiggle room in:
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
I suppose that makes Jesus an extreme protestant?
The situation is akin to poison gas attacks during the war. False doctrine continues to be spouted from the mouths of those who are supposed to be “chief shepherds” within the ACoC and to make matters worse they try to place a chocolate coating over it. The apostates will never admit any wrong and will gladly use any tool that will reduce doctrine to “doing what feels good from a human perspective”. They have either lost all sight of our “old nature” or are quite willing to embrace it and lead their followers on the broad path and away from eternal security that is in Christ alone.
The tragedy is that this apostasy is not only unchallenged but is promoted by Fred Hiltz and other apostates within the House of Bishops. As they have clearly renounced their vows spoken initially at their ordination and reaffirmed at their consecration, I do not refer to them as “bishops”.
“If reconciliation with God were a matter of confidence and blessed feelings, then Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons would all be saved. The Bible, by contrast, teaches that salvation is found in the unique and divine Son of God.”
So, that means that Christians go to heaven — Hindus, Muslims, Buddhist and Mormons all go to Hell?
Wow. Just…wow.
20,
Wow. Just…wow.
Thanks for the insight.
Derek, you have done a useful service for this blog. Many liberal clergy have a clever way of obfuscating the truth and what they really believe, but you have presented your understanding of Christianity in an honest and forthright manner. You are a “poster boy” for why many ACoC parishes no long bear the marks of a true church, and why a separation was essential for the survival of Anglicanism in Canada. (I know this likely sound very judgmental to you but I would like nothing more than to see you come to a true saving faith in Christ.)
If you are reflecting what you have been taught in your parish, and not just your personal opinion, then your parish is not a Christian one. I don’t know how to characterize what is being preached (I think false gospel would be far too kind), but those who are teaching you will have much to answer for on judgment day.
“If you are reflecting what you have been taught in your parish”
Well, my own opinion would be that God is a being, and that different cultures use different words, and different approaches to understand the same thing. We call him God. Mulsims call him Allah. Aboriginals, “The Creator”. For me, I was brought up in the Anglican church and that is how I understand God — but I wouldn’t codemn other religions for using a different approach. That’s how they were raised, and how they understand God.
I also don’t believe that God has a gender, and that Christ may well have been happily married (though I doubt it makes a difference). I also doubt that God will strike me down if I forgot to bow at the cross when I pass it, or that I snuffed out the altar candles incorrectly as an altar boy (there are plenty in my own parish who probably do believe that
). That wasn’t taught in my parish, but is just a realization that the world is a big place and God is a very complicated being to understand.
Derek (#23), your comment is devoid of Christian content. Do you really call yourself a Christian, or are you happy to go with “pagan” (the tone of your comments suggest you might be a happy pagan)? What you appear to believe is a jumble of spiritualism, from multiple sources, with no logical backbone; the foolishness of man’s wisdom as the Bible would put it. Where did you get the strange idea that God has any concern for candles or genuflecting?
If only liberal bishops were this forthright, no one would doubt that they had abandoned the faith.